JOSE Working Group M. Jones
Internet-Draft Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track J. Bradley
Expires: April 20, 2015 Ping Identity
N. Sakimura
NRI
October 17, 2014
JSON Web Signature (JWS)draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-35
Abstract
JSON Web Signature (JWS) represents content secured with digital
signatures or Message Authentication Codes (MACs) using JavaScript
Object Notation (JSON) based data structures. Cryptographic
algorithms and identifiers for use with this specification are
described in the separate JSON Web Algorithms (JWA) specification and
an IANA registry defined by that specification. Related encryption
capabilities are described in the separate JSON Web Encryption (JWE)
specification.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 20141. Introduction
JSON Web Signature (JWS) represents content secured with digital
signatures or Message Authentication Codes (MACs) using JavaScript
Object Notation (JSON) [RFC7159] based data structures. The JWS
cryptographic mechanisms provide integrity protection for an
arbitrary sequence of octets. See Section 10.5 for a discussion on
the differences between Digital Signatures and MACs.
Two closely related serializations for JWS objects are defined. The
JWS Compact Serialization is a compact, URL-safe representation
intended for space constrained environments such as HTTP
Authorization headers and URI query parameters. The JWS JSON
Serialization represents JWS objects as JSON objects and enables
multiple signatures and/or MACs to be applied to the same content.
Both share the same cryptographic underpinnings.
Cryptographic algorithms and identifiers for use with this
specification are described in the separate JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)
[JWA] specification and an IANA registry defined by that
specification. Related encryption capabilities are described in the
separate JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE] specification.
Names defined by this specification are short because a core goal is
for the resulting representations to be compact.
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in Key
words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels [RFC2119]. If
these words are used without being spelled in uppercase then they are
to be interpreted with their normal natural language meanings.
BASE64URL(OCTETS) denotes the base64url encoding of OCTETS, per
Section 2.
UTF8(STRING) denotes the octets of the UTF-8 [RFC3629] representation
of STRING.
ASCII(STRING) denotes the octets of the ASCII [RFC20] representation
of STRING.
The concatenation of two values A and B is denoted as A || B.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 20142. Terminology
These terms are defined by this specification:
JSON Web Signature (JWS)
A data structure representing a digitally signed or MACed message.
JOSE Header
JSON object containing the parameters describing the cryptographic
operations and parameters employed. The JOSE Header is comprised
of a set of Header Parameters.
JWS Payload
The sequence of octets to be secured -- a.k.a., the message. The
payload can contain an arbitrary sequence of octets.
JWS Signature
Digital signature or MAC over the JWS Protected Header and the JWS
Payload.
Header Parameter
A name/value pair that is member of the JOSE Header.
JWS Protected Header
JSON object that contains the Header Parameters that are integrity
protected by the JWS Signature digital signature or MAC operation.
For the JWS Compact Serialization, this comprises the entire JOSE
Header. For the JWS JSON Serialization, this is one component of
the JOSE Header.
JWS Unprotected Header
JSON object that contains the Header Parameters that are not
integrity protected. This can only be present when using the JWS
JSON Serialization.
Base64url Encoding
Base64 encoding using the URL- and filename-safe character set
defined in Section 5 of RFC 4648 [RFC4648], with all trailing '='
characters omitted (as permitted by Section 3.2) and without the
inclusion of any line breaks, white space, or other additional
characters. Note that the base64url encoding of the empty octet
sequence is the empty string. (See Appendix C for notes on
implementing base64url encoding without padding.)
JWS Signing Input
The input to the digital signature or MAC computation. Its value
is ASCII(BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected Header)) || '.' ||
BASE64URL(JWS Payload)).
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
JWS Compact Serialization
A representation of the JWS as a compact, URL-safe string.
JWS JSON Serialization
A representation of the JWS as a JSON object. Unlike the JWS
Compact Serialization, the JWS JSON Serialization enables multiple
digital signatures and/or MACs to be applied to the same content.
This representation is neither optimized for compactness nor URL-
safe.
Unsecured JWS
A JWS object that provides no integrity protection. Unsecured
JWSs use the "alg" value "none".
Collision-Resistant Name
A name in a namespace that enables names to be allocated in a
manner such that they are highly unlikely to collide with other
names. Examples of collision-resistant namespaces include: Domain
Names, Object Identifiers (OIDs) as defined in the ITU-T X.660 and
X.670 Recommendation series, and Universally Unique IDentifiers
(UUIDs) [RFC4122]. When using an administratively delegated
namespace, the definer of a name needs to take reasonable
precautions to ensure they are in control of the portion of the
namespace they use to define the name.
StringOrURI
A JSON string value, with the additional requirement that while
arbitrary string values MAY be used, any value containing a ":"
character MUST be a URI [RFC3986]. StringOrURI values are
compared as case-sensitive strings with no transformations or
canonicalizations applied.
These terms defined by the JSON Web Encryption (JWE) [JWE]
specification are incorporated into this specification: "JSON Web
Encryption (JWE)", "JWE Compact Serialization", and "JWE JSON
Serialization".
These terms defined by the Internet Security Glossary, Version 2
[RFC4949] are incorporated into this specification: "Digital
Signature" and "Message Authentication Code (MAC)".
3. JSON Web Signature (JWS) Overview
JWS represents digitally signed or MACed content using JSON data
structures and base64url encoding. These JSON data structures MAY
contain white space and/or line breaks. A JWS represents these
logical values (each of which is defined in Section 2):
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o JOSE Header
o JWS Payload
o JWS Signature
For a JWS object, the JOSE Header members are the union of the
members of these values (each of which is defined in Section 2):
o JWS Protected Header
o JWS Unprotected Header
This document defines two serializations for JWS objects: a compact,
URL-safe serialization called the JWS Compact Serialization and a
JSON serialization called the JWS JSON Serialization. In both
serializations, the JWS Protected Header, JWS Payload, and JWS
Signature are base64url encoded, since JSON lacks a way to directly
represent arbitrary octet sequences.
3.1. JWS Compact Serialization Overview
In the JWS Compact Serialization, no JWS Unprotected Header is used.
In this case, the JOSE Header and the JWS Protected Header are the
same.
In the JWS Compact Serialization, a JWS object is represented as the
concatenation:
BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected Header)) || '.' ||
BASE64URL(JWS Payload) || '.' ||
BASE64URL(JWS Signature)
See Section 7.1 for more information about the JWS Compact
Serialization.
3.2. JWS JSON Serialization Overview
In the JWS JSON Serialization, one or both of the JWS Protected
Header and JWS Unprotected Header MUST be present. In this case, the
members of the JOSE Header are the union of the members of the JWS
Protected Header and the JWS Unprotected Header values that are
present.
In the JWS JSON Serialization, a JWS object is represented as the
combination of these four values:
BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected Header))
JWS Unprotected Header
BASE64URL(JWS Payload)
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
BASE64URL(JWS Signature)
The three base64url encoded result strings and the JWS Unprotected
Header value are represented as members within a JSON object. The
inclusion of some of these values is OPTIONAL. The JWS JSON
Serialization can also represent multiple signature and/or MAC
values, rather than just one. See Section 7.2 for more information
about the JWS JSON Serialization.
3.3. Example JWS
This section provides an example of a JWS. Its computation is
described in more detail in Appendix A.1, including specifying the
exact octet sequences representing the JSON values used and the key
value used.
The following example JWS Protected Header declares that the encoded
object is a JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] and the JWS Protected Header
and the JWS Payload are secured using the HMAC SHA-256 [RFC2104, SHS]
algorithm:
{"typ":"JWT",
"alg":"HS256"}
Encoding this JWS Protected Header as BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected
Header)) gives this value:
eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLA0KICJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9
The UTF-8 representation of following JSON object is used as the JWS
Payload. (Note that the payload can be any content, and need not be
a representation of a JSON object.)
{"iss":"joe",
"exp":1300819380,
"http://example.com/is_root":true}
Encoding this JWS Payload as BASE64URL(JWS Payload) gives this value
(with line breaks for display purposes only):
eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt
cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ
Computing the HMAC of the JWS Signing Input ASCII(BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS
Protected Header)) || '.' || BASE64URL(JWS Payload)) with the HMAC
SHA-256 algorithm using the key specified in Appendix A.1 and
base64url encoding the result yields this BASE64URL(JWS Signature)
value:
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk
Concatenating these values in the order Header.Payload.Signature with
period ('.') characters between the parts yields this complete JWS
representation using the JWS Compact Serialization (with line breaks
for display purposes only):
eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLA0KICJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9
.
eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt
cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ
.
dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk
See Appendix A for additional examples, including an example using
the JWS JSON Serialization in Appendix A.6.
4. JOSE Header
For a JWS object, the members of the JSON object(s) representing the
JOSE Header describe the digital signature or MAC applied to the JWS
Protected Header and the JWS Payload and optionally additional
properties of the JWS. The Header Parameter names within the JOSE
Header MUST be unique; JWS parsers MUST either reject JWSs with
duplicate Header Parameter names or use a JSON parser that returns
only the lexically last duplicate member name, as specified in
Section 15.12 (The JSON Object) of ECMAScript 5.1 [ECMAScript].
Implementations are required to understand the specific Header
Parameters defined by this specification that are designated as "MUST
be understood" and process them in the manner defined in this
specification. All other Header Parameters defined by this
specification that are not so designated MUST be ignored when not
understood. Unless listed as a critical Header Parameter, per
Section 4.1.11, all Header Parameters not defined by this
specification MUST be ignored when not understood.
There are three classes of Header Parameter names: Registered Header
Parameter names, Public Header Parameter names, and Private Header
Parameter names.
4.1. Registered Header Parameter Names
The following Header Parameter names for use in JWS objects are
registered in the IANA JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header
Parameters registry defined in Section 9.1, with meanings as defined
below.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
As indicated by the common registry, JWSs and JWEs share a common
Header Parameter space; when a parameter is used by both
specifications, its usage must be compatible between the
specifications.
4.1.1. "alg" (Algorithm) Header Parameter
The "alg" (algorithm) Header Parameter identifies the cryptographic
algorithm used to secure the JWS. The JWS Signature value is not
valid if the "alg" value does not represent a supported algorithm, or
if there is not a key for use with that algorithm associated with the
party that digitally signed or MACed the content. "alg" values should
either be registered in the IANA JSON Web Signature and Encryption
Algorithms registry defined in [JWA] or be a value that contains a
Collision-Resistant Name. The "alg" value is a case-sensitive string
containing a StringOrURI value. This Header Parameter MUST be
present and MUST be understood and processed by implementations.
A list of defined "alg" values for this use can be found in the IANA
JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms registry defined in
[JWA]; the initial contents of this registry are the values defined
in Section 3.1 of the JSON Web Algorithms (JWA) [JWA] specification.
4.1.2. "jku" (JWK Set URL) Header Parameter
The "jku" (JWK Set URL) Header Parameter is a URI [RFC3986] that
refers to a resource for a set of JSON-encoded public keys, one of
which corresponds to the key used to digitally sign the JWS. The
keys MUST be encoded as a JSON Web Key Set (JWK Set) [JWK]. The
protocol used to acquire the resource MUST provide integrity
protection; an HTTP GET request to retrieve the JWK Set MUST use TLS
[RFC2818, RFC5246]; the identity of the server MUST be validated, as
per Section 6 of RFC 6125 [RFC6125]. Also, see Section 8 on TLS
requirements. Use of this Header Parameter is OPTIONAL.
4.1.3. "jwk" (JSON Web Key) Header Parameter
The "jwk" (JSON Web Key) Header Parameter is the public key that
corresponds to the key used to digitally sign the JWS. This key is
represented as a JSON Web Key [JWK]. Use of this Header Parameter is
OPTIONAL.
4.1.4. "kid" (Key ID) Header Parameter
The "kid" (key ID) Header Parameter is a hint indicating which key
was used to secure the JWS. This parameter allows originators to
explicitly signal a change of key to recipients. The structure of
the "kid" value is unspecified. Its value MUST be a case-sensitive
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
string. Use of this Header Parameter is OPTIONAL.
When used with a JWK, the "kid" value is used to match a JWK "kid"
parameter value.
4.1.5. "x5u" (X.509 URL) Header Parameter
The "x5u" (X.509 URL) Header Parameter is a URI [RFC3986] that refers
to a resource for the X.509 public key certificate or certificate
chain [RFC5280] corresponding to the key used to digitally sign the
JWS. The identified resource MUST provide a representation of the
certificate or certificate chain that conforms to RFC 5280 [RFC5280]
in PEM encoded form, with each certificate delimited as specified in
Section 6.1 of RFC 4945 [RFC4945]. The certificate containing the
public key corresponding to the key used to digitally sign the JWS
MUST be the first certificate. This MAY be followed by additional
certificates, with each subsequent certificate being the one used to
certify the previous one. The protocol used to acquire the resource
MUST provide integrity protection; an HTTP GET request to retrieve
the certificate MUST use TLS [RFC2818, RFC5246]; the identity of the
server MUST be validated, as per Section 6 of RFC 6125 [RFC6125].
Also, see Section 8 on TLS requirements. Use of this Header
Parameter is OPTIONAL.
4.1.6. "x5c" (X.509 Certificate Chain) Header Parameter
The "x5c" (X.509 Certificate Chain) Header Parameter contains the
X.509 public key certificate or certificate chain [RFC5280]
corresponding to the key used to digitally sign the JWS. The
certificate or certificate chain is represented as a JSON array of
certificate value strings. Each string in the array is a base64
encoded ([RFC4648] Section 4 -- not base64url encoded) DER
[ITU.X690.1994] PKIX certificate value. The certificate containing
the public key corresponding to the key used to digitally sign the
JWS MUST be the first certificate. This MAY be followed by
additional certificates, with each subsequent certificate being the
one used to certify the previous one. The recipient MUST validate
the certificate chain according to RFC 5280 [RFC5280] and reject the
signature if any validation failure occurs. Use of this Header
Parameter is OPTIONAL.
See Appendix B for an example "x5c" value.
4.1.7. "x5t" (X.509 Certificate SHA-1 Thumbprint) Header Parameter
The "x5t" (X.509 Certificate SHA-1 Thumbprint) Header Parameter is a
base64url encoded SHA-1 thumbprint (a.k.a. digest) of the DER
encoding of the X.509 certificate [RFC5280] corresponding to the key
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
used to digitally sign the JWS. Note that certificate thumbprints
are also sometimes known as certificate fingerprints. Use of this
Header Parameter is OPTIONAL.
4.1.8. "x5t#S256" (X.509 Certificate SHA-256 Thumbprint) Header Parameter
The "x5t#S256" (X.509 Certificate SHA-256 Thumbprint) Header
Parameter is a base64url encoded SHA-256 thumbprint (a.k.a. digest)
of the DER encoding of the X.509 certificate [RFC5280] corresponding
to the key used to digitally sign the JWS. Note that certificate
thumbprints are also sometimes known as certificate fingerprints.
Use of this Header Parameter is OPTIONAL.
4.1.9. "typ" (Type) Header Parameter
The "typ" (type) Header Parameter is used by JWS applications to
declare the MIME Media Type [IANA.MediaTypes] of this complete JWS
object. This is intended for use by the application when more than
one kind of object could be present in an application data structure
that can contain a JWS object; the application can use this value to
disambiguate among the different kinds of objects that might be
present. It will typically not be used by applications when the kind
of object is already known. This parameter is ignored by JWS
implementations; any processing of this parameter is performed by the
JWS application. Use of this Header Parameter is OPTIONAL.
Per RFC 2045 [RFC2045], all media type values, subtype values, and
parameter names are case-insensitive. However, parameter values are
case-sensitive unless otherwise specified for the specific parameter.
To keep messages compact in common situations, it is RECOMMENDED that
producers omit an "application/" prefix of a media type value in a
"typ" Header Parameter when no other '/' appears in the media type
value. A recipient using the media type value MUST treat it as if
"application/" were prepended to any "typ" value not containing a
'/'. For instance, a "typ" value of "example" SHOULD be used to
represent the "application/example" media type; whereas, the media
type "application/example;part="1/2"" cannot be shortened to
"example;part="1/2"".
The "typ" value "JOSE" can be used by applications to indicate that
this object is a JWS or JWE using the JWS Compact Serialization or
the JWE Compact Serialization. The "typ" value "JOSE+JSON" can be
used by applications to indicate that this object is a JWS or JWE
using the JWS JSON Serialization or the JWE JSON Serialization.
Other type values can also be used by applications.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 20144.1.10. "cty" (Content Type) Header Parameter
The "cty" (content type) Header Parameter is used by JWS applications
to declare the MIME Media Type [IANA.MediaTypes] of the secured
content (the payload). This is intended for use by the application
when more than one kind of object could be present in the JWS
payload; the application can use this value to disambiguate among the
different kinds of objects that might be present. It will typically
not be used by applications when the kind of object is already known.
This parameter is ignored by JWS implementations; any processing of
this parameter is performed by the JWS application. Use of this
Header Parameter is OPTIONAL.
Per RFC 2045 [RFC2045], all media type values, subtype values, and
parameter names are case-insensitive. However, parameter values are
case-sensitive unless otherwise specified for the specific parameter.
To keep messages compact in common situations, it is RECOMMENDED that
producers omit an "application/" prefix of a media type value in a
"cty" Header Parameter when no other '/' appears in the media type
value. A recipient using the media type value MUST treat it as if
"application/" were prepended to any "cty" value not containing a
'/'. For instance, a "cty" value of "example" SHOULD be used to
represent the "application/example" media type; whereas, the media
type "application/example;part="1/2"" cannot be shortened to
"example;part="1/2"".
4.1.11. "crit" (Critical) Header Parameter
The "crit" (critical) Header Parameter indicates that extensions to
the initial RFC versions of [[ this specification ]] and [JWA] are
being used that MUST be understood and processed. Its value is an
array listing the Header Parameter names present in the JOSE Header
that use those extensions. If any of the listed extension Header
Parameters are not understood and supported by the recipient, it MUST
reject the JWS. Producers MUST NOT include Header Parameter names
defined by the initial RFC versions of [[ this specification ]] or
[JWA] for use with JWS, duplicate names, or names that do not occur
as Header Parameter names within the JOSE Header in the "crit" list.
Producers MUST NOT use the empty list "[]" as the "crit" value.
Recipients MAY reject the JWS if the critical list contains any
Header Parameter names defined by the initial RFC versions of [[ this
specification ]] or [JWA] for use with JWS, or any other constraints
on its use are violated. When used, this Header Parameter MUST be
integrity protected; therefore, it MUST occur only within the JWS
Protected Header. Use of this Header Parameter is OPTIONAL. This
Header Parameter MUST be understood and processed by implementations.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
An example use, along with a hypothetical "exp" (expiration-time)
field is:
{"alg":"ES256",
"crit":["exp"],
"exp":1363284000
}
4.2. Public Header Parameter Names
Additional Header Parameter names can be defined by those using JWSs.
However, in order to prevent collisions, any new Header Parameter
name should either be registered in the IANA JSON Web Signature and
Encryption Header Parameters registry defined in Section 9.1 or be a
Public Name: a value that contains a Collision-Resistant Name. In
each case, the definer of the name or value needs to take reasonable
precautions to make sure they are in control of the part of the
namespace they use to define the Header Parameter name.
New Header Parameters should be introduced sparingly, as they can
result in non-interoperable JWSs.
4.3. Private Header Parameter Names
A producer and consumer of a JWS may agree to use Header Parameter
names that are Private Names: names that are not Registered Header
Parameter names Section 4.1 or Public Header Parameter names
Section 4.2. Unlike Public Header Parameter names, Private Header
Parameter names are subject to collision and should be used with
caution.
5. Producing and Consuming JWSs5.1. Message Signature or MAC Computation
To create a JWS, one MUST perform these steps. The order of the
steps is not significant in cases where there are no dependencies
between the inputs and outputs of the steps.
1. Create the content to be used as the JWS Payload.
2. Compute the encoded payload value BASE64URL(JWS Payload).
3. Create the JSON object(s) containing the desired set of Header
Parameters, which together comprise the JOSE Header: if the JWS
Compact Serialization is being used, the JWS Protected Header, or
if the JWS JSON Serialization is being used, the JWS Protected
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
Header and/or the JWS Unprotected Header.
4. Compute the encoded header value BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected
Header)). If the JWS Protected Header is not present (which can
only happen when using the JWS JSON Serialization and no
"protected" member is present), let this value be the empty
string.
5. Compute the JWS Signature in the manner defined for the
particular algorithm being used over the JWS Signing Input
ASCII(BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected Header)) || '.' ||
BASE64URL(JWS Payload)). The "alg" (algorithm) Header Parameter
MUST be present in the JOSE Header, with the algorithm value
accurately representing the algorithm used to construct the JWS
Signature.
6. Compute the encoded signature value BASE64URL(JWS Signature).
7. If the JWS JSON Serialization is being used, repeat this process
(steps 3-6) for each digital signature or MAC operation being
performed.
8. Create the desired serialized output. The JWS Compact
Serialization of this result is BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected
Header)) || '.' || BASE64URL(JWS Payload) || '.' || BASE64URL(JWS
Signature). The JWS JSON Serialization is described in
Section 7.2.
5.2. Message Signature or MAC Validation
When validating a JWS, the following steps MUST be taken. The order
of the steps is not significant in cases where there are no
dependencies between the inputs and outputs of the steps. If any of
the listed steps fails, then the signature or MAC cannot be
validated.
When there are multiple JWS Signature values, it is an application
decision which of the JWS Signature values must successfully validate
for the JWS to be accepted. In some cases, all must successfully
validate or the JWS will be rejected. In other cases, only a
specific JWS signature value needs to be successfully validated.
However, in all cases, at least one JWS signature value MUST
successfully validate or the JWS MUST be rejected.
1. Parse the JWS representation to extract the serialized values
for the components of the JWS. When using the JWS Compact
Serialization, these components are the base64url encoded
representations of the JWS Protected Header, the JWS Payload,
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
and the JWS Signature, and when using the JWS JSON
Serialization, these components also include the unencoded JWS
Unprotected Header value. When using the JWS Compact
Serialization, the JWS Protected Header, the JWS Payload, and
the JWS Signature are represented as base64url encoded values in
that order, with each value being separated from the next by a
single period ('.') character, resulting in exactly two
delimiting period characters being used. The JWS JSON
Serialization is described in Section 7.2.
2. Base64url decode the encoded representation of the JWS Protected
Header, following the restriction that no line breaks, white
space, or other additional characters have been used.
3. Verify that the resulting octet sequence is a UTF-8 encoded
representation of a completely valid JSON object conforming to
RFC 7159 [RFC7159]; let the JWS Protected Header be this JSON
object.
4. If using the JWS Compact Serialization, let the JOSE Header be
the JWS Protected Header. Otherwise, when using the JWS JSON
Serialization, let the JOSE Header be the union of the members
of the corresponding JWS Protected Header and JWS Unprotected
Header, all of which must be completely valid JSON objects.
During this step, verify that the resulting JOSE Header does not
contain duplicate Header Parameter names. When using the JWS
JSON Serialization, this restriction includes that the same
Header Parameter name also MUST NOT occur in distinct JSON
object values that together comprise the JOSE Header.
5. Verify that the implementation understands and can process all
fields that it is required to support, whether required by this
specification, by the algorithm being used, or by the "crit"
Header Parameter value, and that the values of those parameters
are also understood and supported.
6. Base64url decode the encoded representation of the JWS Payload,
following the restriction that no line breaks, white space, or
other additional characters have been used.
7. Base64url decode the encoded representation of the JWS
Signature, following the restriction that no line breaks, white
space, or other additional characters have been used.
8. Validate the JWS Signature against the JWS Signing Input
ASCII(BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected Header)) || '.' ||
BASE64URL(JWS Payload)) in the manner defined for the algorithm
being used, which MUST be accurately represented by the value of
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
the "alg" (algorithm) Header Parameter, which MUST be present.
See Section 10.6 for security considerations on algorithm
validation. Record whether the validation succeeded or not.
9. If the JWS JSON Serialization is being used, repeat this process
(steps 4-8) for each digital signature or MAC value contained in
the representation.
10. If none of the validations in step 9 succeeded, then the JWS
MUST be rejected. Otherwise, in the JWS JSON Serialization
case, return a result to the application indicating which of the
validations succeeded and failed. In the JWS Compact
Serialization case, the result can simply indicate whether the
JWS was accepted or rejected.
Finally, note that it is an application decision which algorithms may
be used in a given context. Even if a JWS can be successfully
validated, unless the algorithm(s) used in the JWS are acceptable to
the application, it SHOULD reject the JWS.
5.3. String Comparison Rules
Processing a JWS inevitably requires comparing known strings to
members and values in JSON objects. For example, in checking what
the algorithm is, the Unicode string "alg" will be checked against
the member names in the JOSE Header to see if there is a matching
Header Parameter name. The same process is then used to determine if
the value of the "alg" Header Parameter represents a supported
algorithm.
The JSON rules for doing member name comparison are described in
Section 8.3 of RFC 7159 [RFC7159]. Since the only string comparison
operations that are performed are equality and inequality, the same
rules can be used for comparing both member names and member values
against known strings.
These comparison rules MUST be used for all JSON string comparisons
except in cases where the definition of the member explicitly calls
out that a different comparison rule is to be used for that member
value. Only the "typ" and "cty" member values defined in this
specification do not use these comparison rules.
Some applications may include case-insensitive information in a case-
sensitive value, such as including a DNS name as part of a "kid" (key
ID) value. In those cases, the application may need to define a
convention for the canonical case to use for representing the case-
insensitive portions, such as lowercasing them, if more than one
party might need to produce the same value so that they can be
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
compared. (However if all other parties consume whatever value the
producing party emitted verbatim without attempting to compare it to
an independently produced value, then the case used by the producer
will not matter.)
Also, see the JSON security considerations in Section 10.12 and the
Unicode security considerations in Section 10.13.
6. Key Identification
It is necessary for the recipient of a JWS to be able to determine
the key that was employed for the digital signature or MAC operation.
The key employed can be identified using the Header Parameter methods
described in Section 4.1 or can be identified using methods that are
outside the scope of this specification. Specifically, the Header
Parameters "jku", "jwk", "kid", "x5u", "x5c", "x5t", and "x5t#S256"
can be used to identify the key used. These Header Parameters MUST
be integrity protected if the information that they convey is to be
utilized in a trust decision.
The producer SHOULD include sufficient information in the Header
Parameters to identify the key used, unless the application uses
another means or convention to determine the key used. Validation of
the signature or MAC fails when the algorithm used requires a key
(which is true of all algorithms except for "none") and the key used
cannot be determined.
The means of exchanging any shared symmetric keys used is outside the
scope of this specification.
Also, see Appendix D for notes on possible key selection algorithms.
7. Serializations
JWS objects use one of two serializations, the JWS Compact
Serialization or the JWS JSON Serialization. Applications using this
specification need to specify what serialization and serialization
features are used for that application. For instance, applications
might specify that only the JWS JSON Serialization is used, that only
JWS JSON Serialization support for a single signature or MAC value is
used, or that support for multiple signatures and/or MAC values is
used. JWS implementations only need to implement the features needed
for the applications they are designed to support.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 20147.1. JWS Compact Serialization
The JWS Compact Serialization represents digitally signed or MACed
content as a compact, URL-safe string. This string is:
BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected Header)) || '.' ||
BASE64URL(JWS Payload) || '.' ||
BASE64URL(JWS Signature)
Only one signature/MAC is supported by the JWS Compact Serialization
and it provides no syntax to represent a JWS Unprotected Header
value.
7.2. JWS JSON Serialization
The JWS JSON Serialization represents digitally signed or MACed
content as a JSON object. Content using the JWS JSON Serialization
can be secured with more than one digital signature and/or MAC
operation. This representation is neither optimized for compactness
nor URL-safe.
The following members are defined for use in top-level JSON objects
used for the JWS JSON Serialization:
payload
The "payload" member MUST be present and contain the value
BASE64URL(JWS Payload).
signatures
The "signatures" member value MUST be an array of JSON objects.
Each object represents a signature or MAC over the JWS Payload and
the JWS Protected Header.
The following members are defined for use in the JSON objects that
are elements of the "signatures" array:
protected
The "protected" member MUST be present and contain the value
BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected Header)) when the JWS Protected
Header value is non-empty; otherwise, it MUST be absent. These
Header Parameter values are integrity protected.
header
The "header" member MUST be present and contain the value JWS
Unprotected Header when the JWS Unprotected Header value is non-
empty; otherwise, it MUST be absent. This value is represented as
an unencoded JSON object, rather than as a string. These Header
Parameter values are not integrity protected.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
signature
The "signature" member MUST be present and contain the value
BASE64URL(JWS Signature).
At least one of the "protected" and "header" members MUST be present
for each signature/MAC computation so that an "alg" Header Parameter
value is conveyed.
Additional members can be present in both the JSON objects defined
above; if not understood by implementations encountering them, they
MUST be ignored.
The Header Parameter values used when creating or validating
individual signature or MAC values are the union of the two sets of
Header Parameter values that may be present: (1) the JWS Protected
Header represented in the "protected" member of the signature/MAC's
array element, and (2) the JWS Unprotected Header in the "header"
member of the signature/MAC's array element. The union of these sets
of Header Parameters comprises the JOSE Header. The Header Parameter
names in the two locations MUST be disjoint.
Each JWS Signature value is computed using the parameters of the
corresponding JOSE Header value in the same manner as for the JWS
Compact Serialization. This has the desirable property that each JWS
Signature value represented in the "signatures" array is identical to
the value that would have been computed for the same parameter in the
JWS Compact Serialization, provided that the JWS Protected Header
value for that signature/MAC computation (which represents the
integrity-protected Header Parameter values) matches that used in the
JWS Compact Serialization.
In summary, the syntax of a JWS using the JWS JSON Serialization is
as follows:
{
"payload":"<payload contents>",
"signatures":[
{"protected":"<integrity-protected header 1 contents>",
"header":<non-integrity-protected header 1 contents>,
"signature":"<signature 1 contents>"},
...
{"protected":"<integrity-protected header N contents>",
"header":<non-integrity-protected header N contents>,
"signature":"<signature N contents>"}]
}
See Appendix A.6 for an example of computing a JWS using the JWS JSON
Serialization.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 20148. TLS Requirements
Implementations MUST support TLS. Which version(s) ought to be
implemented will vary over time, and depend on the widespread
deployment and known security vulnerabilities at the time of
implementation. At the time of this writing, TLS version 1.2
[RFC5246] is the most recent version.
To protect against information disclosure and tampering,
confidentiality protection MUST be applied using TLS with a
ciphersuite that provides confidentiality and integrity protection.
See current publications by the IETF TLS working group, including RFC6176 [RFC6176], for guidance on the ciphersuites currently considered
to be appropriate for use. Also, see Recommendations for Secure Use
of TLS and DTLS [I-D.ietf-uta-tls-bcp] for recommendations on
improving the security of software and services using TLS.
Whenever TLS is used, the identity of the service provider encoded in
the TLS server certificate MUST be verified using the procedures
described in Section 6 of RFC 6125 [RFC6125]. TLS is used by the
"jku" and "x5u" Header Parameters defined by this specification.
9. IANA Considerations
The following registration procedure is used for all the registries
established by this specification.
Values are registered on a Specification Required [RFC5226] basis
after a three-week review period on the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing list,
on the advice of one or more Designated Experts. However, to allow
for the allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated
Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied that such
a specification will be published.
Registration requests must be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing list
for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request
for access token type: example"). [[ Note to the RFC Editor: The name
of the mailing list should be determined in consultation with the
IESG and IANA. Suggested name: jose-reg-review. ]]
Within the review period, the Designated Expert(s) will either
approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision
to the review list and IANA. Denials should include an explanation
and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request
successful. Registration requests that are undetermined for a period
longer than 21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the
iesg@ietf.org mailing list) for resolution.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
Criteria that should be applied by the Designated Expert(s) includes
determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing
functionality, determining whether it is likely to be of general
applicability or whether it is useful only for a single application,
and whether the registration description is clear.
IANA must only accept registry updates from the Designated Expert(s)
and should direct all requests for registration to the review mailing
list.
It is suggested that multiple Designated Experts be appointed who are
able to represent the perspectives of different applications using
this specification, in order to enable broadly-informed review of
registration decisions. In cases where a registration decision could
be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular
Expert, that Expert should defer to the judgment of the other
Expert(s).
[[ Note to the RFC Editor and IANA: Pearl Liang of ICANN had
requested that the draft supply the following proposed registry
description information. It is to be used for all registries
established by this specification.
o Protocol Category: JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)
o Registry Location: http://www.iana.org/assignments/jose
o Webpage Title: (same as the protocol category)
o Registry Name: (same as the section title, but excluding the word
"Registry", for example "JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header
Parameters")
]]
9.1. JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header Parameters Registry
This specification establishes the IANA JSON Web Signature and
Encryption Header Parameters registry for Header Parameter names.
The registry records the Header Parameter name and a reference to the
specification that defines it. The same Header Parameter name can be
registered multiple times, provided that the parameter usage is
compatible between the specifications. Different registrations of
the same Header Parameter name will typically use different Header
Parameter Usage Location(s) values.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 20149.1.1. Registration Template
Header Parameter Name:
The name requested (e.g., "kid"). Because a core goal of this
specification is for the resulting representations to be compact,
it is RECOMMENDED that the name be short -- not to exceed 8
characters without a compelling reason to do so. This name is
case-sensitive. Names may not match other registered names in a
case-insensitive manner unless the Designated Expert(s) state that
there is a compelling reason to allow an exception in this
particular case.
Header Parameter Description:
Brief description of the Header Parameter (e.g., "Key ID").
Header Parameter Usage Location(s):
The Header Parameter usage locations, which should be one or more
of the values "JWS" or "JWE".
Change Controller:
For Standards Track RFCs, state "IESG". For others, give the name
of the responsible party. Other details (e.g., postal address,
email address, home page URI) may also be included.
Specification Document(s):
Reference to the document(s) that specify the parameter,
preferably including URI(s) that can be used to retrieve copies of
the document(s). An indication of the relevant sections may also
be included but is not required.
9.1.2. Initial Registry Contents
This specification registers the Header Parameter names defined in
Section 4.1 in this registry.
o Header Parameter Name: "alg"
o Header Parameter Description: Algorithm
o Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWS
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.1 of [[ this document ]]
o Header Parameter Name: "jku"
o Header Parameter Description: JWK Set URL
o Header Parameter Usage Location(s): JWS
o Change Controller: IESG
o Specification Document(s): Section 4.1.2 of [[ this document ]]
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o Type name: application
o Subtype name: jose+json
o Required parameters: n/a
o Optional parameters: n/a
o Encoding considerations: 8bit; application/jose+json values are
represented as a JSON Object; UTF-8 encoding SHOULD be employed
for the JSON object.
o Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section
of [[ this document ]]
o Interoperability considerations: n/a
o Published specification: [[ this document ]]
o Applications that use this media type: TBD
o Fragment identifier considerations: n/a
o Additional information: Magic number(s): n/a, File extension(s):
n/a, Macintosh file type code(s): n/a
o Person & email address to contact for further information: Michael
B. Jones, mbj@microsoft.com
o Intended usage: COMMON
o Restrictions on usage: none
o Author: Michael B. Jones, mbj@microsoft.com
o Change Controller: IESG
o Provisional registration? No
10. Security Considerations
All of the security issues that are pertinent to any cryptographic
application must be addressed by JWS/JWE/JWK agents. Among these
issues are protecting the user's asymmetric private and symmetric
secret keys and employing countermeasures to various attacks.
All the security considerations in XML DSIG 2.0
[W3C.NOTE-xmldsig-core2-20130411], also apply to this specification,
other than those that are XML specific. Likewise, many of the best
practices documented in XML Signature Best Practices
[W3C.NOTE-xmldsig-bestpractices-20130411] also apply to this
specification, other than those that are XML specific.
10.1. Key Entropy and Random Values
Keys are only as strong as the amount of entropy used to generate
them. A minimum of 128 bits of entropy should be used for all keys,
and depending upon the application context, more may be required.
Implementations must randomly generate public/private key pairs,
message authentication (MAC) keys, and padding values. The use of
inadequate pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs) to generate
cryptographic keys can result in little or no security. An attacker
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
may find it much easier to reproduce the PRNG environment that
produced the keys, searching the resulting small set of
possibilities, rather than brute force searching the whole key space.
The generation of quality random numbers is difficult. RFC 4086
[RFC4086] offers important guidance in this area.
10.2. Key Protection
Implementations must protect the signer's private key. Compromise of
the signer's private key permits an attacker to masquerade as the
signer.
Implementations must protect the message authentication (MAC) key.
Compromise of the MAC key may result in undetectable modification of
the authenticated content.
10.3. Key Origin Authentication
The key management technique employed to obtain public keys must
authenticate the origin of the key; otherwise, it is unknown what
party signed the message.
Likewise, the key management technique employed to distribute MAC
keys must provide data origin authentication; otherwise, the contents
are delivered with integrity from an unknown source.
10.4. Cryptographic Agility
See Section 8.1 of [JWA] for security considerations on cryptographic
agility.
10.5. Differences between Digital Signatures and MACs
While MACs and digital signatures can both be used for integrity
checking, there are some significant differences between the security
properties that each of them provides. These need to be taken into
consideration when designing protocols and selecting the algorithms
to be used in protocols.
Both signatures and MACs provide for integrity checking -- verifying
that the message has not been modified since the integrity value was
computed. However, MACs provide for origination identification only
under specific circumstances. It can normally be assumed that a
private key used for a signature is only in the hands of a single
entity (although perhaps a distributed entity, in the case of
replicated servers); however, a MAC key needs to be in the hands of
all the entities that use it for integrity computation and checking.
Validation of a MAC only provides corroboration that the message was
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
generated by one of the parties that knows the symmetric MAC key.
This means that origination can only be determined if a MAC key is
known only to two entities and the recipient knows that it did not
create the message. MAC validation cannot be used to prove
origination to a third party.
10.6. Algorithm Validation
The digital signature representations for some algorithms include
information about the algorithm used inside the signature value. For
instance, signatures produced with RSASSA-PKCS-v1_5 [RFC3447] encode
the hash function used and many libraries actually use the hash
algorithm specified inside the signature when validating the
signature. When using such libraries, as part of the algorithm
validation performed, implementations MUST ensure that the algorithm
information encoded in the signature corresponds to that specified
with the "alg" Header Parameter. If this is not done, an attacker
could claim to have used a strong hash algorithm while actually using
a weak one represented in the signature value.
10.7. Algorithm Protection
In some usages of JWS, there is a risk of algorithm substitution
attacks, in which an attacker can use an existing digital signature
value with a different signature algorithm to make it appear that a
signer has signed something that it has not. These attacks have been
discussed in detail in the context of CMS [RFC6211]. This risk
arises when all of the following are true:
o Verifiers of a signature support multiple algorithms.
o Given an existing signature, an attacker can find another payload
that produces the same signature value with a different algorithm.
o The payload crafted by the attacker is valid in the application
context.
There are several ways for an application to mitigate algorithm
substitution attacks:
o Use only digital signature algorithms that are not vulnerable to
substitution attacks. Substitution attacks are only feasible if
an attacker can compute pre-images for a hash function accepted by
the recipient. All JWA-defined signature algorithms use SHA-2
hashes, for which there are no known pre-image attacks, as of the
time of this writing.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o Require that the "alg" Header Parameter be carried in the
protected header. (This is always the case when using the JWS
Compact Serialization and is the approach taken by CMS [RFC6211].)
o Include a field containing the algorithm in the application
payload, and require that it be matched with the "alg" Header
Parameter during verification. (This is the approach taken by
PKIX [RFC5280].)
10.8. Chosen Plaintext Attacks
Creators of JWSs should not allow third parties to insert arbitrary
content into the message without adding entropy not controlled by the
third party.
10.9. Timing Attacks
When cryptographic algorithms are implemented in such a way that
successful operations take a different amount of time than
unsuccessful operations, attackers may be able to use the time
difference to obtain information about the keys employed. Therefore,
such timing differences must be avoided.
10.10. Replay Protection
While not directly in scope for this specification, note that
applications using JWS (or JWE) objects can thwart replay attacks by
including a unique message identifier as integrity-protected content
in the JWS (or JWE) message and having the recipient verify that the
message has not been previously received or acted upon.
10.11. SHA-1 Certificate Thumbprints
A SHA-1 hash is used when computing "x5t" (X.509 Certificate SHA-1
Thumbprint) values, for compatibility reasons. Should an effective
means of producing SHA-1 hash collisions be developed, and should an
attacker wish to interfere with the use of a known certificate on a
given system, this could be accomplished by creating another
certificate whose SHA-1 hash value is the same and adding it to the
certificate store used by the intended victim. A prerequisite to
this attack succeeding is the attacker having write access to the
intended victim's certificate store.
Alternatively, the "x5t#S256" (X.509 Certificate SHA-256 Thumbprint)
Header Parameter could be used instead of "x5t". However, at the
time of this writing, no development platform is known to support
SHA-256 certificate thumbprints.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 201410.12. JSON Security Considerations
Strict JSON [RFC7159] validation is a security requirement. If
malformed JSON is received, then the intent of the producer is
impossible to reliably discern. Ambiguous and potentially
exploitable situations could arise if the JSON parser used does not
reject malformed JSON syntax. In particular, any JSON inputs not
conforming to the JSON-text syntax defined in RFC 7159 input MUST be
rejected in their entirety.
Section 4 of the JSON Data Interchange Format specification [RFC7159]
states "The names within an object SHOULD be unique", whereas this
specification states that "Header Parameter names within this object
MUST be unique; JWS parsers MUST either reject JWSs with duplicate
Header Parameter names or use a JSON parser that returns only the
lexically last duplicate member name, as specified in Section 15.12
(The JSON Object) of ECMAScript 5.1 [ECMAScript]". Thus, this
specification requires that the Section 4 "SHOULD" be treated as a
"MUST" by producers and that it be either treated as a "MUST" or in
the manner specified in ECMAScript 5.1 by consumers. Ambiguous and
potentially exploitable situations could arise if the JSON parser
used does not enforce the uniqueness of member names or returns an
unpredictable value for duplicate member names.
Some JSON parsers might not reject input that contains extra
significant characters after a valid input. For instance, the input
"{"tag":"value"}ABCD" contains a valid JSON-text object followed by
the extra characters "ABCD". Such input MUST be rejected in its
entirety.
10.13. Unicode Comparison Security Considerations
Header Parameter names and algorithm names are Unicode strings. For
security reasons, the representations of these names must be compared
verbatim after performing any escape processing (as per Section 8.3
of RFC 7159 [RFC7159]). This means, for instance, that these JSON
strings must compare as being equal ("sig", "\u0073ig"), whereas
these must all compare as being not equal to the first set or to each
other ("SIG", "Sig", "si\u0047").
JSON strings can contain characters outside the Unicode Basic
Multilingual Plane. For instance, the G clef character (U+1D11E) may
be represented in a JSON string as "\uD834\uDD1E". Ideally, JWS
implementations SHOULD ensure that characters outside the Basic
Multilingual Plane are preserved and compared correctly;
alternatively, if this is not possible due to these characters
exercising limitations present in the underlying JSON implementation,
then input containing them MUST be rejected.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-xmldsig-core2-20130411/>.
Appendix A. JWS Examples
This section provides several examples of JWSs. While the first
three examples all represent JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) [JWT], the
payload can be any octet sequence, as shown in Appendix A.4.
A.1. Example JWS using HMAC SHA-256A.1.1. Encoding
The following example JWS Protected Header declares that the data
structure is a JSON Web Token (JWT) [JWT] and the JWS Signing Input
is secured using the HMAC SHA-256 algorithm.
{"typ":"JWT",
"alg":"HS256"}
To remove potential ambiguities in the representation of the JSON
object above, the actual octet sequence representing UTF8(JWS
Protected Header) used in this example is also included below. (Note
that ambiguities can arise due to differing platform representations
of line breaks (CRLF versus LF), differing spacing at the beginning
and ends of lines, whether the last line has a terminating line break
or not, and other causes. In the representation used in this
example, the first line has no leading or trailing spaces, a CRLF
line break (13, 10) occurs between the first and second lines, the
second line has one leading space (32) and no trailing spaces, and
the last line does not have a terminating line break.) The octets
representing UTF8(JWS Protected Header) in this example (using JSON
array notation) are:
[123, 34, 116, 121, 112, 34, 58, 34, 74, 87, 84, 34, 44, 13, 10, 32,
34, 97, 108, 103, 34, 58, 34, 72, 83, 50, 53, 54, 34, 125]
Encoding this JWS Protected Header as BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected
Header)) gives this value:
eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLA0KICJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9
The JWS Payload used in this example is the octets of the UTF-8
representation of the JSON object below. (Note that the payload can
be any base64url encoded octet sequence, and need not be a base64url
encoded JSON object.)
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 34]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
{"kty":"oct",
"k":"AyM1SysPpbyDfgZld3umj1qzKObwVMkoqQ-EstJQLr_T-1qS0gZH75
aKtMN3Yj0iPS4hcgUuTwjAzZr1Z9CAow"
}
Running the HMAC SHA-256 algorithm on the JWS Signing Input with this
key yields this JWS Signature octet sequence:
[116, 24, 223, 180, 151, 153, 224, 37, 79, 250, 96, 125, 216, 173,
187, 186, 22, 212, 37, 77, 105, 214, 191, 240, 91, 88, 5, 88, 83,
132, 141, 121]
Encoding this JWS Signature as BASE64URL(JWS Signature) gives this
value:
dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk
Concatenating these values in the order Header.Payload.Signature with
period ('.') characters between the parts yields this complete JWS
representation using the JWS Compact Serialization (with line breaks
for display purposes only):
eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLA0KICJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9
.
eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt
cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ
.
dBjftJeZ4CVP-mB92K27uhbUJU1p1r_wW1gFWFOEjXk
A.1.2. Validating
Since the "alg" Header Parameter is "HS256", we validate the HMAC
SHA-256 value contained in the JWS Signature.
To validate the HMAC value, we repeat the previous process of using
the correct key and the JWS Signing Input (which is the initial
substring of the JWS Compact Serialization representation up until
but not including the second period character) as input to the HMAC
SHA-256 function and then taking the output and determining if it
matches the JWS Signature (which is base64url decoded from the value
encoded in the JWS representation). If it matches exactly, the HMAC
has been validated.
A.2. Example JWS using RSASSA-PKCS-v1_5 SHA-256Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 36]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
cC4hiUPoj9Eetdgtv3hF80EGrhuB__dzERat0XF9g2VtQgr9PJbu3XOiZj5RZmh7
AAuHIm4Bh-0Qc_lF5YKt_O8W2Fp5jujGbds9uJdbF9CUAr7t1dnZcAcQjbKBYNX4
BAynRFdiuB--f_nZLgrnbyTyWzO75vRK5h6xBArLIARNPvkSjtQBMHlb1L07Qe7K
0GarZRmB_eSN9383LcOLn6_dO--xi12jzDwusC-eOkHWEsqtFZESc6BfI7noOPqv
hJ1phCnvWh6IeYI2w9QOYEUipUTI8np6LbgGY9Fs98rqVt5AXLIhWkWywlVmtVrB
p0igcN_IoypGlUPQGe77Rw
Concatenating these values in the order Header.Payload.Signature with
period ('.') characters between the parts yields this complete JWS
representation using the JWS Compact Serialization (with line breaks
for display purposes only):
eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9
.
eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt
cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ
.
cC4hiUPoj9Eetdgtv3hF80EGrhuB__dzERat0XF9g2VtQgr9PJbu3XOiZj5RZmh7
AAuHIm4Bh-0Qc_lF5YKt_O8W2Fp5jujGbds9uJdbF9CUAr7t1dnZcAcQjbKBYNX4
BAynRFdiuB--f_nZLgrnbyTyWzO75vRK5h6xBArLIARNPvkSjtQBMHlb1L07Qe7K
0GarZRmB_eSN9383LcOLn6_dO--xi12jzDwusC-eOkHWEsqtFZESc6BfI7noOPqv
hJ1phCnvWh6IeYI2w9QOYEUipUTI8np6LbgGY9Fs98rqVt5AXLIhWkWywlVmtVrB
p0igcN_IoypGlUPQGe77Rw
A.2.2. Validating
Since the "alg" Header Parameter is "RS256", we validate the RSASSA-
PKCS-v1_5 SHA-256 digital signature contained in the JWS Signature.
Validating the JWS Signature is a bit different from the previous
example. We pass the public key (n, e), the JWS Signature (which is
base64url decoded from the value encoded in the JWS representation),
and the JWS Signing Input (which is the initial substring of the JWS
Compact Serialization representation up until but not including the
second period character) to an RSASSA-PKCS-v1_5 signature verifier
that has been configured to use the SHA-256 hash function.
A.3. Example JWS using ECDSA P-256 SHA-256A.3.1. Encoding
The JWS Protected Header for this example differs from the previous
example because a different algorithm is being used. The JWS
Protected Header used is:
{"alg":"ES256"}
The octets representing UTF8(JWS Protected Header) in this example
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 39]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
representation using the JWS Compact Serialization (with line breaks
for display purposes only):
eyJhbGciOiJFUzUxMiJ9
.
UGF5bG9hZA
.
AdwMgeerwtHoh-l192l60hp9wAHZFVJbLfD_UxMi70cwnZOYaRI1bKPWROc-mZZq
wqT2SI-KGDKB34XO0aw_7XdtAG8GaSwFKdCAPZgoXD2YBJZCPEX3xKpRwcdOO8Kp
EHwJjyqOgzDO7iKvU8vcnwNrmxYbSW9ERBXukOXolLzeO_Jn
A.4.2. Validating
Since the "alg" Header Parameter is "ES512", we validate the ECDSA
P-521 SHA-512 digital signature contained in the JWS Signature.
Validating this JWS Signature is very similar to the previous
example. We need to split the 132 member octet sequence of the JWS
Signature into two 66 octet sequences, the first representing R and
the second S. We then pass the public key (x, y), the signature (R,
S), and the JWS Signing Input to an ECDSA signature verifier that has
been configured to use the P-521 curve with the SHA-512 hash
function.
A.5. Example Unsecured JWS
The following example JWS Protected Header declares that the encoded
object is an Unsecured JWS:
{"alg":"none"}
Encoding this JWS Protected Header as BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected
Header)) gives this value:
eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0
The JWS Payload used in this example, which follows, is the same as
in the previous examples. Since the BASE64URL(JWS Payload) value
will therefore be the same, its computation is not repeated here.
{"iss":"joe",
"exp":1300819380,
"http://example.com/is_root":true}
The JWS Signature is the empty octet string and BASE64URL(JWS
Signature) is the empty string.
Concatenating these parts in the order Header.Payload.Signature with
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 44]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
period ('.') characters between the parts yields this complete JWS
(with line breaks for display purposes only):
eyJhbGciOiJub25lIn0
.
eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt
cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ
.
A.6. Example JWS Using JWS JSON Serialization
This section contains an example using the JWS JSON Serialization.
This example demonstrates the capability for conveying multiple
digital signatures and/or MACs for the same payload.
The JWS Payload used in this example is the same as that used in the
examples in Appendix A.2 and Appendix A.3 (with line breaks for
display purposes only):
eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFt
cGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ
Two digital signatures are used in this example: the first using
RSASSA-PKCS-v1_5 SHA-256 and the second using ECDSA P-256 SHA-256.
For the first, the JWS Protected Header and key are the same as in
Appendix A.2, resulting in the same JWS Signature value; therefore,
its computation is not repeated here. For the second, the JWS
Protected Header and key are the same as in Appendix A.3, resulting
in the same JWS Signature value; therefore, its computation is not
repeated here.
A.6.1. JWS Per-Signature Protected Headers
The JWS Protected Header value used for the first signature is:
{"alg":"RS256"}
Encoding this JWS Protected Header as BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected
Header)) gives this value:
eyJhbGciOiJSUzI1NiJ9
The JWS Protected Header value used for the second signature is:
{"alg":"ES256"}
Encoding this JWS Protected Header as BASE64URL(UTF8(JWS Protected
Header)) gives this value:
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 45]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
padding character is added; if the length mod 4 is 1, the input is
malformed.
An example correspondence between unencoded and encoded values
follows. The octet sequence below encodes into the string below,
which when decoded, reproduces the octet sequence.
3 236 255 224 193
A-z_4ME
Appendix D. Notes on Key Selection
This appendix describes a set of possible algorithms for selecting
the key to be used to validate the digital signature or MAC of a JWS
object or for selecting the key to be used to decrypt a JWE object.
This guidance describes a family of possible algorithms, rather than
a single algorithm, because in different contexts, not all the
sources of keys will be used, they can be tried in different orders,
and sometimes not all the collected keys will be tried; hence,
different algorithms will be used in different application contexts.
The steps below are described for illustration purposes only;
specific applications can and are likely to use different algorithms
or perform some of the steps in different orders. Specific
applications will frequently have a much simpler method of
determining the keys to use, as there may be one or two key selection
methods that are profiled for the application's use. This appendix
supplements the normative information on key location in Section 6.
These algorithms include the following steps. Note that the steps
can be performed in any order and do not need to be treated as
distinct. For example, keys can be tried as soon as they are found,
rather than collecting all the keys before trying any.
1. Collect the set of potentially applicable keys. Sources of keys
may include:
* Keys supplied by the application protocol being used.
* Keys referenced by the "jku" (JWK Set URL) Header Parameter.
* The key provided by the "jwk" (JSON Web Key) Header Parameter.
* The key referenced by the "x5u" (X.509 URL) Header Parameter.
* The key provided by the "x5c" (X.509 Certificate Chain) Header
Parameter.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 50]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
* Other applicable keys available to the application.
The order for collecting and trying keys from different key
sources is typically application dependent. For example,
frequently all keys from a one set of locations, such as local
caches, will be tried before collecting and trying keys from
other locations.
2. Filter the set of collected keys. For instance, some
applications will use only keys referenced by "kid" (key ID) or
"x5t" (X.509 certificate SHA-1 thumbprint) parameters. If the
application uses the "alg" (algorithm), "use" (public key use),
or "key_ops" (key operations) parameters, keys with keys with
inappropriate values of those parameters would be excluded.
Additionally, keys might be filtered to include or exclude keys
with certain other member values in an application specific
manner. For some applications, no filtering will be applied.
3. Order the set of collected keys. For instance, keys referenced
by "kid" (Key ID) or "x5t" (X.509 Certificate SHA-1 Thumbprint)
parameters might be tried before keys with neither of these
values. Likewise, keys with certain member values might be
ordered before keys with other member values. For some
applications, no ordering will be applied.
4. Make trust decisions about the keys. Signatures made with keys
not meeting the application's trust criteria would not be
accepted. Such criteria might include, but is not limited to the
source of the key, whether the TLS certificate validates for keys
retrieved from URLs, whether a key in an X.509 certificate is
backed by a valid certificate chain, and other information known
by the application.
5. Attempt signature or MAC validation for a JWS object or
decryption of a JWE object with some or all of the collected and
possibly filtered and/or ordered keys. A limit on the number of
keys to be tried might be applied. This process will normally
terminate following a successful validation or decryption.
Note that it is reasonable for some applications to perform signature
or MAC validation prior to making a trust decision about a key, since
keys for which the validation fails need no trust decision.
Appendix E. Negative Test Case for "crit" Header Parameter
Conforming implementations must reject input containing critical
extensions that are not understood or cannot be processed. The
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 51]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
following JWS must be rejected by all implementations, because it
uses an extension Header Parameter name
"http://example.invalid/UNDEFINED" that they do not understand. Any
other similar input, in which the use of the value
"http://example.invalid/UNDEFINED" is substituted for any other
Header Parameter name not understood by the implementation, must also
be rejected.
The JWS Protected Header value for this JWS is:
{"alg":"none",
"crit":["http://example.invalid/UNDEFINED"],
"http://example.invalid/UNDEFINED":true
}
The complete JWS that must be rejected is as follows (with line
breaks for display purposes only):
eyJhbGciOiJub25lIiwNCiAiY3JpdCI6WyJodHRwOi8vZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vVU5ERU
ZJTkVEIl0sDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9VTkRFRklORUQiOnRydWUNCn0.
RkFJTA.
Appendix F. Detached Content
In some contexts, it is useful integrity protect content that is not
itself contained in a JWS object. One way to do this is create a JWS
object in the normal fashion using a representation of the content as
the payload, but then delete the payload representation from the JWS,
and send this modified object to the recipient, rather than the JWS.
When using the JWS Compact Serialization, the deletion is
accomplished by replacing the second field (which contains
BASE64URL(JWS Payload)) value with the empty string; when using the
JWS JSON Serialization, the deletion is accomplished by deleting the
"payload" member. This method assumes that the recipient can
reconstruct the exact payload used in the JWS. To use the modified
object, the recipient reconstructs the JWS by re-inserting the
payload representation into the modified object, and uses the
resulting JWS in the usual manner. Note that this method needs no
support from JWS libraries, as applications can use this method by
modifying the inputs and outputs of standard JWS libraries.
Appendix G. Acknowledgements
Solutions for signing JSON content were previously explored by Magic
Signatures [MagicSignatures], JSON Simple Sign [JSS], and Canvas
Applications [CanvasApp], all of which influenced this draft.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 52]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o Changed the registration review period to three weeks.
o Acknowledged additional contributors.
-32
o Addressed Gen-ART review comments by Russ Housley.
o Addressed secdir review comments by Tero Kivinen, Stephen Kent,
and Scott Kelly.
o Replaced the term Plaintext JWS with Unsecured JWS.
-31
o Reworded the language about JWS implementations ignoring the "typ"
and "cty" parameters, explicitly saying that their processing is
performed by JWS applications.
o Added additional guidance on ciphersuites currently considered to
be appropriate for use, including a reference to a recent update
by the TLS working group.
-30
o Added subsection headings within the Overview section for the two
serializations.
o Added references and cleaned up the reference syntax in a few
places.
o Applied minor wording changes to the Security Considerations
section and made other local editorial improvements.
-29
o Replaced the terms JWS Header, JWE Header, and JWT Header with a
single JOSE Header term defined in the JWS specification. This
also enabled a single Header Parameter definition to be used and
reduced other areas of duplication between specifications.
-28
o Revised the introduction to the Security Considerations section.
Also introduced additional subsection headings for security
considerations items and also moved a security consideration item
here from the JWA draft.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 54]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o Added text about when applications typically would and would not
use "typ" and "cty" header parameters.
-27
o Added the "x5t#S256" (X.509 Certificate SHA-256 Thumbprint) header
parameter.
o Stated that any JSON inputs not conforming to the JSON-text syntax
defined in RFC 7159 input MUST be rejected in their entirety.
o Simplified the TLS requirements.
-26
o Referenced Section 6 of RFC 6125 for TLS server certificate
identity validation.
o Described potential sources of ambiguity in representing the JSON
objects used in the examples. The octets of the actual UTF-8
representations of the JSON objects used in the examples are
included to remove these ambiguities.
o Added a small amount of additional explanatory text to the
signature validation examples to aid implementers.
o Noted that octet sequences are depicted using JSON array notation.
o Updated references, including to W3C specifications.
-25
o No changes were made, other than to the version number and date.
-24
o Updated the JSON reference to RFC 7159.
-23
o Clarified that the base64url encoding includes no line breaks,
white space, or other additional characters.
-22
o Corrected RFC 2119 terminology usage.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 55]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o Refined the "typ" and "cty" definitions to always be MIME Media
Types, with the omission of "application/" prefixes recommended
for brevity, addressing issue #50.
o Updated the mandatory-to-implement (MTI) language to say that
general-purpose implementations must implement the single
signature/MAC value case for both serializations whereas special-
purpose implementations can implement just one serialization if
that meets the needs of the use cases the implementation is
designed for, addressing issue #119.
o Explicitly named all the logical components of a JWS and defined
the processing rules and serializations in terms of those
components, addressing issues #60, #61, and #62.
o Replaced verbose repetitive phases such as "base64url encode the
octets of the UTF-8 representation of X" with mathematical
notation such as "BASE64URL(UTF8(X))".
o Terms used in multiple documents are now defined in one place and
incorporated by reference. Some lightly used or obvious terms
were also removed. This addresses issue #58.
-16
o Changes to address editorial and minor issues #50, #98, #99, #102,
#104, #106, #107, #111, and #112.
-15
o Clarified that it is an application decision which signatures,
MACs, or plaintext values must successfully validate for the JWS
to be accepted, addressing issue #35.
o Corrected editorial error in "ES512" example.
o Changes to address editorial and minor issues #34, #96, #100,
#101, #104, #105, and #106.
-14
o Stated that the "signature" parameter is to be omitted in the JWS
JSON Serialization when its value would be empty (which is only
the case for a Plaintext JWS).
-13
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 57]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o Made all header parameter values be per-signature/MAC, addressing
issue #24.
-12
o Clarified that the "typ" and "cty" header parameters are used in
an application-specific manner and have no effect upon the JWS
processing.
o Replaced the MIME types "application/jws+json" and
"application/jws" with "application/jose+json" and
"application/jose".
o Stated that recipients MUST either reject JWSs with duplicate
Header Parameter Names or use a JSON parser that returns only the
lexically last duplicate member name.
o Added a Serializations section with parallel treatment of the JWS
Compact Serialization and the JWS JSON Serialization and also
moved the former Implementation Considerations content there.
-11
o Added Key Identification section.
o For the JWS JSON Serialization, enable header parameter values to
be specified in any of three parameters: the "protected" member
that is integrity protected and shared among all recipients, the
"unprotected" member that is not integrity protected and shared
among all recipients, and the "header" member that is not
integrity protected and specific to a particular recipient. (This
does not affect the JWS Compact Serialization, in which all header
parameter values are in a single integrity protected JWE Header
value.)
o Removed suggested compact serialization for multiple digital
signatures and/or MACs.
o Changed the MIME type name "application/jws-js" to
"application/jws+json", addressing issue #22.
o Tightened the description of the "crit" (critical) header
parameter.
o Added a negative test case for the "crit" header parameter
-10
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 58]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o Added an appendix suggesting a possible compact serialization for
JWSs with multiple digital signatures and/or MACs.
-09
o Added JWS JSON Serialization, as specified by
draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization-04.
o Registered "application/jws-js" MIME type and "JWS-JS" typ header
parameter value.
o Defined that the default action for header parameters that are not
understood is to ignore them unless specifically designated as
"MUST be understood" or included in the new "crit" (critical)
header parameter list. This addressed issue #6.
o Changed term "JWS Secured Input" to "JWS Signing Input".
o Changed from using the term "byte" to "octet" when referring to 8
bit values.
o Changed member name from "recipients" to "signatures" in the JWS
JSON Serialization.
o Added complete values using the JWS Compact Serialization for all
examples.
-08
o Applied editorial improvements suggested by Jeff Hodges and Hannes
Tschofenig. Many of these simplified the terminology used.
o Clarified statements of the form "This header parameter is
OPTIONAL" to "Use of this header parameter is OPTIONAL".
o Added a Header Parameter Usage Location(s) field to the IANA JSON
Web Signature and Encryption Header Parameters registry.
o Added seriesInfo information to Internet Draft references.
-07
o Updated references.
-06
o Changed "x5c" (X.509 Certificate Chain) representation from being
a single string to being an array of strings, each containing a
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 59]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
single base64 encoded DER certificate value, representing elements
of the certificate chain.
o Applied changes made by the RFC Editor to RFC 6749's registry
language to this specification.
-05
o Added statement that "StringOrURI values are compared as case-
sensitive strings with no transformations or canonicalizations
applied".
o Indented artwork elements to better distinguish them from the body
text.
-04
o Completed JSON Security Considerations section, including
considerations about rejecting input with duplicate member names.
o Completed security considerations on the use of a SHA-1 hash when
computing "x5t" (x.509 certificate thumbprint) values.
o Refer to the registries as the primary sources of defined values
and then secondarily reference the sections defining the initial
contents of the registries.
o Normatively reference XML DSIG 2.0 for its security
considerations.
o Added this language to Registration Templates: "This name is case
sensitive. Names that match other registered names in a case
insensitive manner SHOULD NOT be accepted."
o Reference draft-jones-jose-jws-json-serialization instead of
draft-jones-json-web-signature-json-serialization.
o Described additional open issues.
o Applied editorial suggestions.
-03
o Added the "cty" (content type) header parameter for declaring type
information about the secured content, as opposed to the "typ"
(type) header parameter, which declares type information about
this object.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 60]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o Added "Collision Resistant Namespace" to the terminology section.
o Reference ITU.X690.1994 for DER encoding.
o Added an example JWS using ECDSA P-521 SHA-512. This has
particular illustrative value because of the use of the 521 bit
integers in the key and signature values. This is also an example
in which the payload is not a base64url encoded JSON object.
o Added an example "x5c" value.
o No longer say "the UTF-8 representation of the JWS Secured Input
(which is the same as the ASCII representation)". Just call it
"the ASCII representation of the JWS Secured Input".
o Added Registration Template sections for defined registries.
o Added Registry Contents sections to populate registry values.
o Changed name of the JSON Web Signature and Encryption "typ" Values
registry to be the JSON Web Signature and Encryption Type Values
registry, since it is used for more than just values of the "typ"
parameter.
o Moved registries JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header
Parameters and JSON Web Signature and Encryption Type Values to
the JWS specification.
o Numerous editorial improvements.
-02
o Clarified that it is an error when a "kid" value is included and
no matching key is found.
o Removed assumption that "kid" (key ID) can only refer to an
asymmetric key.
o Clarified that JWSs with duplicate Header Parameter Names MUST be
rejected.
o Clarified the relationship between "typ" header parameter values
and MIME types.
o Registered application/jws MIME type and "JWS" typ header
parameter value.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 61]

Internet-Draft JSON Web Signature (JWS) October 2014
o Simplified JWK terminology to get replace the "JWK Key Object" and
"JWK Container Object" terms with simply "JSON Web Key (JWK)" and
"JSON Web Key Set (JWK Set)" and to eliminate potential confusion
between single keys and sets of keys. As part of this change, the
Header Parameter Name for a public key value was changed from
"jpk" (JSON Public Key) to "jwk" (JSON Web Key).
o Added suggestion on defining additional header parameters such as
"x5t#S256" in the future for certificate thumbprints using hash
algorithms other than SHA-1.
o Specify RFC 2818 server identity validation, rather than RFC 6125
(paralleling the same decision in the OAuth specs).
o Generalized language to refer to Message Authentication Codes
(MACs) rather than Hash-based Message Authentication Codes (HMACs)
unless in a context specific to HMAC algorithms.
o Reformatted to give each header parameter its own section heading.
-01
o Moved definition of Plaintext JWSs (using "alg":"none") here from
the JWT specification since this functionality is likely to be
useful in more contexts that just for JWTs.
o Added "jpk" and "x5c" header parameters for including JWK public
keys and X.509 certificate chains directly in the header.
o Clarified that this specification is defining the JWS Compact
Serialization. Referenced the new JWS-JS spec, which defines the
JWS JSON Serialization.
o Added text "New header parameters should be introduced sparingly
since an implementation that does not understand a parameter MUST
reject the JWS".
o Clarified that the order of the creation and validation steps is
not significant in cases where there are no dependencies between
the inputs and outputs of the steps.
o Changed "no canonicalization is performed" to "no canonicalization
need be performed".
o Corrected the Magic Signatures reference.
o Made other editorial improvements suggested by JOSE working group
participants.
Jones, et al. Expires April 20, 2015 [Page 62]